Assessment sheet for Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast sub-region and for seven subdivisions
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 0.59 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.23 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.16 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.11 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.77 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abyssal | 513.94 | 23384 | 7.69 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 36.76 | 2628 | 11910.24 | 2.41 | 54.73 | 1.49 | 0.73 | 0.43 | 0.25 |
| Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 36.17 | 2508 | 13.19 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 34.91 | 3107 | 9837.19 | 15.48 | 81.61 | 2.34 | 0.96 | 0.86 | 0.47 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 31.94 | 2741 | 7128.44 | 34.73 | 118.58 | 3.71 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 0.45 |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 21.70 | 1491 | 424.71 | 0.00 | 11.12 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.11 |
| Circalittoral sand | 16.56 | 2141 | 260.78 | 14.21 | 46.20 | 2.79 | 0.80 | 0.57 | 0.21 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 12.53 | 1519 | 1736.97 | 8.20 | 30.27 | 2.42 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 0.44 |
| Lower bathyal sediment | 12.10 | 1281 | 27.34 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Circalittoral coarse sediment | 8.77 | 1304 | 151.57 | 20.31 | 53.33 | 6.08 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.24 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 7.26 | 1406 | 1478.26 | 2.69 | 14.47 | 1.99 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.36 |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 7.05 | 1483 | 208.92 | 1.68 | 4.86 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.29 | 0.19 |
| Circalittoral mud | 6.41 | 1114 | 91.01 | 2.13 | 7.81 | 1.22 | 0.71 | 0.32 | 0.13 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 3.47 | 733 | 760.28 | 10.06 | 21.69 | 6.25 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.31 |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 2.99 | 519 | 30.41 | 0.37 | 15.64 | 5.23 | 0.81 | 0.51 | 0.11 |
| Infralittoral sand | 2.58 | 1030 | 52.32 | 0.19 | 0.47 | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 2.08 | 943 | 17.86 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 0.11 |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 1.74 | 411 | 475.34 | 0.00 | 1.61 | 0.92 | 0.53 | 0.32 | 0.18 |
| Infralittoral mud | 0.73 | 426 | 9.27 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.03 |
| Unknown | 0.56 | 888 | 50.97 | 0.05 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.41 | 0.25 | 0.02 |
| Infralittoral coarse sediment | 0.51 | 387 | 2.62 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.46 | 0.04 | 0.13 |
| Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.50 | 79 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
| Infralittoral mixed sediment | 0.37 | 164 | 4.61 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.04 | 0.10 |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.06 | 165.45 | 219.93 | 23.96 | 1.95 | 50.46 | 0 | 0 | 3.14 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 365.04 | 30.25 | 34234.50 | 3.76 | 131.31 | 2.09 | 0 | 0 | 0.31 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.15 | 41.35 | 41.85 | 16.49 | 1.18 | 9.50 | 0 | 0 | 2.45 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 6156.83 | 0.18 | 155.66 | 0.16 | 67.31 | 0.04 | NA | NA | 0.10 | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 2.57 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.19 | NA | NA | 0.78 | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 98.41 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 98.86 | 51.89 | 97.64 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 99.04 | 36.50 | 89.84 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 99.17 | 24.50 | 80.76 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 99.27 | 16.13 | 68.20 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 99.45 | 4.33 | 44.06 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.59 | 3.58 | 28.00 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.79 | 2.28 | 20.81 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.92 | 0.27 | 8.00 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 26.98 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 62.27 | 87.55 | 93.35 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 68.67 | 75.86 | 88.78 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 73.04 | 63.74 | 84.18 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 76.08 | 52.34 | 80.03 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 81.58 | 35.37 | 69.33 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 85.90 | 18.54 | 59.00 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 92.57 | 13.66 | 34.37 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 97.44 | 4.31 | 11.61 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 99.96 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 91.88 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 96.13 | 43.87 | 80.00 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 97.86 | 0.47 | 63.48 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 98.64 | 0.00 | 41.71 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 99.04 | 0.00 | 34.14 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 99.40 | 0.00 | 11.39 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.57 | 0.00 | 8.12 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.80 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.93 | 0.00 | 0.10 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 3.85 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 20.89 | 96.55 | 92.19 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 29.64 | 92.63 | 85.27 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 36.78 | 89.13 | 78.43 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 43.08 | 84.98 | 70.87 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 54.11 | 75.53 | 57.78 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 63.87 | 66.44 | 45.56 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 80.03 | 47.15 | 24.81 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 92.01 | 24.95 | 9.34 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 99.76 | 2.18 | 0.01 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 3.32 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.92 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.80 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.56 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.08 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 22.06 | 1564 | 2746.01 | 14.05 | 51.71 | 2.34 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.55 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 15.67 | 1234 | 1046.81 | 34.14 | 72.81 | 4.65 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.53 |
| Circalittoral sand | 10.07 | 1071 | 86.14 | 14.21 | 40.55 | 4.03 | 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.36 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 9.18 | 996 | 809.08 | 7.31 | 24.57 | 2.68 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.49 |
| Circalittoral coarse sediment | 8.23 | 1055 | 83.51 | 20.31 | 53.18 | 6.47 | 0.98 | 0.87 | 0.29 |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 2.94 | 614 | 0.39 | 1.68 | 3.16 | 1.08 | 0.94 | 0.44 | 0.27 |
| Circalittoral mud | 2.67 | 534 | 10.91 | 2.13 | 5.41 | 2.03 | 0.92 | 0.59 | 0.22 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 2.09 | 377 | 179.35 | 2.60 | 5.38 | 2.57 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.48 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 2.05 | 293 | 28.74 | 10.02 | 17.12 | 8.36 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.44 |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.85 | 391 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.13 |
| Infralittoral sand | 0.72 | 375 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.65 | 0.17 | 0.05 |
| Infralittoral mud | 0.37 | 199 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0.03 |
| Infralittoral coarse sediment | 0.36 | 288 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.15 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 0.25 | 54 | 76.77 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 2.17 | 1.00 | 0.78 | 0.43 |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.24 | 80 | 2.11 | 0.37 | 1.10 | 4.58 | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.30 |
| Unknown | 0.20 | 403 | 2.11 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.58 | 0.62 | 0.35 | 0.04 |
| Infralittoral mixed sediment | 0.06 | 50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.08 |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.40 | 1.00 | 1.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.01 | 64.51 | 134.08 | 23.92 | 1.85 | 49.29 | 0 | 0 | 3.13 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 0.77 | 6.35 | 4971.49 | 3.76 | 87.42 | 2.03 | 0 | 0 | 0.31 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.15 | 41.34 | 36.75 | 16.46 | 1.13 | 9.31 | 0 | 0 | 2.45 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 115.82 | 0.10 | 37.08 | 0.16 | 47.24 | 0.04 | NA | NA | 0.10 | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 22.48 | 0.64 | 0.27 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.19 | NA | NA | 0.78 | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 2.12 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 17.65 | 95.18 | 93.06 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 26.57 | 90.94 | 84.94 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 33.77 | 86.05 | 78.35 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 40.41 | 81.70 | 69.04 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 51.78 | 72.30 | 53.29 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 62.37 | 63.83 | 34.17 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 79.45 | 45.10 | 8.63 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 91.95 | 23.27 | 2.14 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 99.81 | 1.53 | 0.04 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 0.15 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 15.62 | 96.68 | 81.53 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 25.74 | 93.21 | 70.15 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 35.20 | 89.88 | 55.11 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 43.14 | 86.14 | 45.04 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 57.23 | 77.82 | 25.76 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 68.18 | 69.18 | 9.95 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 84.11 | 47.83 | 1.18 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 93.94 | 22.57 | 0.35 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 99.87 | 1.02 | 0.01 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 3.12 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 28.71 | 93.80 | 95.18 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 36.80 | 88.42 | 90.25 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 43.37 | 83.20 | 85.47 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 48.73 | 77.87 | 78.12 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 60.05 | 68.08 | 52.28 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 69.19 | 58.02 | 35.23 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 83.40 | 37.91 | 9.28 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 93.66 | 18.18 | 2.60 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 99.80 | 1.66 | 0.06 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 1.06 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 11.62 | 94.57 | 91.89 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 22.58 | 89.66 | 83.22 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 31.81 | 84.94 | 73.80 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 38.60 | 79.25 | 68.92 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 51.97 | 69.69 | 52.71 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 63.56 | 60.34 | 34.21 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 80.95 | 39.74 | 18.91 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 92.53 | 20.50 | 2.83 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 1.21 | 0.00 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 0.13 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.09 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.04 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.03 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.91 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abyssal | 329.39 | 15530 | 7.15 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 22.96 | 1602 | 9383.41 | 2.29 | 30.44 | 1.33 | 0.75 | 0.42 | 0.24 |
| Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 21.19 | 1456 | 7.77 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.02 |
| Lower bathyal sediment | 12.05 | 1264 | 24.62 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 5.71 | 520 | 187.57 | 0.00 | 1.05 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 2.73 | 347 | 1120.34 | 1.42 | 8.07 | 2.96 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.44 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 2.09 | 260 | 808.36 | 0.57 | 4.80 | 2.30 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.47 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 1.99 | 195 | 351.49 | 0.89 | 4.34 | 2.18 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.52 |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 1.19 | 211 | 335.70 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.46 | 0.26 | 0.18 |
| Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.50 | 79 | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.29 | 48 | 67.82 | 0.09 | 0.59 | 2.04 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.42 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.08 | 35 | 49.34 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 3.35 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.34 |
| Unknown | 0.05 | 20 | 35.66 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 4.72 | 1.00 | 1.00 | NA |
| Circalittoral sand | 0.00 | 3 | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.20 | 0.20 | NA |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 5.22 | 44.36 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 1.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 0.00 | 3.44 | 12352.73 | 0.01 | 25.42 | 0.06 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.00 | 0.01 | 5.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 16.13 | 0.66 | 278.46 | 0.23 | 338.03 | 0.05 | NA | NA | 0.13 | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 22.99 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.80 | 0.60 | 0.16 | NA | NA | 0.85 | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 97.83 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 98.45 | 54.70 | 97.67 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 98.69 | 44.48 | 94.17 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 98.87 | 33.64 | 84.61 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 99.02 | 24.50 | 77.72 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 99.25 | 11.84 | 54.93 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.44 | 4.33 | 36.63 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.72 | 3.11 | 18.88 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.89 | 1.88 | 5.78 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 25.14 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 62.42 | 87.75 | 96.10 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 69.09 | 75.73 | 92.79 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 73.27 | 65.37 | 89.28 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 76.32 | 54.60 | 85.75 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 81.44 | 37.00 | 76.81 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 85.23 | 21.65 | 68.15 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 91.68 | 14.57 | 47.08 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 96.78 | 8.35 | 24.15 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 1.84 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 95.17 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 96.61 | 52.99 | 87.70 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 97.72 | 52.99 | 81.10 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 98.38 | 43.87 | 76.05 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 98.80 | 0.47 | 70.32 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 99.48 | 0.47 | 60.22 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.87 | 0.00 | 41.61 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 13.68 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 13.68 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 13.68 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 78.61 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 89.55 | 94.25 | 96.22 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 92.66 | 90.88 | 91.51 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 94.68 | 87.91 | 86.03 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 95.67 | 83.77 | 80.62 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 97.05 | 77.90 | 67.65 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 98.27 | 68.58 | 59.23 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.47 | 45.91 | 48.31 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.77 | 30.58 | 16.24 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 15.29 | 0.01 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 1.38 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.78 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.53 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.40 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.22 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 7.46 | 790 | 5712.82 | 0.01 | 16.00 | 2.14 | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.41 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 5.18 | 508 | 4522.39 | 0.02 | 12.16 | 2.35 | 0.99 | 0.87 | 0.45 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 3.33 | 590 | 1179.91 | 0.00 | 4.84 | 1.45 | 0.87 | 0.59 | 0.33 |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 2.59 | 513 | 204.48 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 0.23 | 0.59 | 0.15 | 0.20 |
| Circalittoral sand | 2.03 | 510 | 139.90 | 0.00 | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.14 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 1.46 | 189 | 1289.99 | 0.00 | 3.73 | 2.56 | 0.99 | 0.79 | 0.46 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 1.23 | 298 | 570.63 | 0.00 | 1.23 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.64 | 0.35 |
| Circalittoral mud | 0.93 | 214 | 12.80 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.63 | 0.17 | 0.08 |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.78 | 348 | 17.82 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 0.14 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.73 | 173 | 647.56 | 0.00 | 1.85 | 2.55 | 0.96 | 0.86 | 0.34 |
| Circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.45 | 216 | 67.64 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.84 | 0.26 | 0.21 |
| Infralittoral sand | 0.44 | 290 | 4.77 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.38 | 0.04 | 0.12 |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.43 | 105 | 6.93 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.73 | 0.12 | 0.16 |
| Infralittoral mud | 0.14 | 105 | 1.74 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 0.12 |
| Infralittoral mixed sediment | 0.12 | 46 | 1.40 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.17 |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.09 | 36 | 112.79 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 3.57 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.33 |
| Infralittoral coarse sediment | 0.04 | 63 | 2.19 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0.11 | 0.17 |
| Unknown | 0.03 | 273 | 6.35 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 1.14 | 0.73 | 0.57 | 0.01 |
| Lower bathyal sediment | 0.00 | 1 | 2.71 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.15 | 1.00 | 1.00 | NA |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.16 | 1.00 | 1.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.02 | 10.38 | 31.79 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 104.08 | 5.47 | 14395.44 | 0.00 | 18.46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 4343.54 | 0.53 | 452.86 | 0.19 | 743.10 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.66 | 0.41 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 3.04 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 25.98 | 67.58 | 94.28 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 34.51 | 59.45 | 88.46 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 41.36 | 59.45 | 82.95 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 47.62 | 59.45 | 77.26 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 57.80 | 0.00 | 65.78 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 66.96 | 0.00 | 54.23 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 81.15 | 0.00 | 34.34 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 91.75 | 0.00 | 14.50 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 1.32 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 19.91 | 82.48 | 94.66 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 27.15 | 73.93 | 89.56 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 32.58 | 73.88 | 82.38 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 39.09 | 73.88 | 73.99 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 50.23 | 73.86 | 60.36 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 61.76 | 0.17 | 47.48 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 79.39 | 0.00 | 25.59 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 93.02 | 0.00 | 6.83 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 12.82 | 100.0 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 36.64 | 83.5 | 91.17 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 47.90 | 83.5 | 81.81 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 55.70 | 83.5 | 73.81 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 61.91 | 0.0 | 65.35 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 70.99 | 0.0 | 51.83 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 78.52 | 0.0 | 37.62 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 88.79 | 0.0 | 20.92 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 96.33 | 0.0 | 5.85 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.0 | 0.01 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 40.67 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 68.01 | 12.53 | 83.81 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 76.07 | 3.67 | 78.76 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 81.86 | 0.00 | 73.63 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 84.05 | 0.00 | 67.23 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 88.69 | 0.00 | 53.84 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 92.00 | 0.00 | 40.89 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 96.90 | 0.00 | 17.30 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.23 | 0.00 | 5.72 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 2.62 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.68 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.50 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.35 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.32 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 6.47 | 495 | 540.09 | 0 | 22.37 | 3.46 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 0.43 |
| Circalittoral sand | 2.59 | 382 | 6.99 | 0 | 4.97 | 1.92 | 0.64 | 0.30 | 0.12 |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 2.17 | 305 | 14.07 | 0 | 14.38 | 6.62 | 0.82 | 0.57 | 0.15 |
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 1.68 | 295 | 215.63 | 0 | 5.26 | 3.13 | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.36 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 1.39 | 311 | 48.86 | 0 | 3.40 | 2.44 | 0.92 | 0.70 | 0.32 |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 1.37 | 280 | 3.99 | 0 | 1.09 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.27 | 0.16 |
| Circalittoral mud | 1.08 | 227 | 0.34 | 0 | 1.94 | 1.80 | 0.58 | 0.27 | 0.07 |
| Infralittoral sand | 0.84 | 213 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.51 | 180 | 20.85 | 0 | 2.20 | 4.33 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.27 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 0.32 | 77 | 85.05 | 0 | 1.23 | 3.90 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.36 |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.21 | 113 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Unknown | 0.14 | 117 | 2.99 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Infralittoral mixed sediment | 0.07 | 42 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.03 | 0.12 |
| Infralittoral mud | 0.06 | 49 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.10 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.05 | 11 | 1.52 | 0 | 0.13 | 2.71 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.36 |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.03 | 21 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.06 | 1.81 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.19 |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.02 | 13 | 1.13 | 0 | 0.04 | 1.71 | 0.57 | 0.55 | NA |
| Circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
| Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 1 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.00 | 4.56 | 1.00 | 1.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.03 | 51.50 | 5.85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 0.29 | 10.72 | 930.66 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 11.37 | 0.21 | 159.22 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 10.74 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 31.16 | NA | 97.69 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 37.56 | NA | 95.30 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 43.85 | NA | 89.41 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 49.18 | NA | 84.77 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 59.25 | NA | 73.04 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 68.41 | NA | 60.21 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 82.16 | NA | 39.62 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 93.03 | NA | 14.47 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.02 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 35.57 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 76.26 | NA | 88.57 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 79.78 | NA | 55.13 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 81.89 | NA | 50.32 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 84.28 | NA | 44.33 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 87.28 | NA | 39.60 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 90.36 | NA | 9.30 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 94.75 | NA | 7.07 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 97.84 | NA | 4.11 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 1.57 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 18.29 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 54.34 | NA | 81.94 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 60.27 | NA | 76.24 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 64.89 | NA | 72.10 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 68.34 | NA | 65.33 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 76.36 | NA | 11.72 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 81.82 | NA | 10.13 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 89.37 | NA | 7.41 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 96.76 | NA | 4.13 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 1.41 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 12.00 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 30.00 | NA | 98.13 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 35.52 | NA | 95.57 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 40.49 | NA | 91.51 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 45.44 | NA | 88.96 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 54.24 | NA | 83.04 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 63.22 | NA | 71.60 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 77.34 | NA | 51.18 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 90.29 | NA | 25.28 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 1.86 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 0.07 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.42 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.06 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.11 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.58 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Circalittoral sand | 1.86 | 162 | 26.94 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Circalittoral mud | 1.73 | 132 | 66.96 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.10 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 1.21 | 76 | 113.52 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.92 | 0.10 | 0.21 |
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 0.65 | 46 | 0.85 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.16 | 0.24 |
| Infralittoral sand | 0.59 | 123 | 47.49 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.23 | 58 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 |
| Infralittoral mud | 0.16 | 59 | 7.53 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.37 | 0.09 | 0.05 |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.15 | 26 | 7.30 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.68 | 0.03 | 0.12 |
| Infralittoral mixed sediment | 0.13 | 23 | 3.22 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.29 | 0.03 | 0.13 |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.13 | 58 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| Infralittoral coarse sediment | 0.11 | 31 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| Circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.10 | 32 | 0.42 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.03 |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.07 | 12 | 4.26 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.40 | 0.03 | NA |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.05 | 15 | 10.27 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.31 | NA |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 0.04 | 17 | 2.70 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.23 | 0.71 | 0.18 | NA |
| Unknown | 0.01 | 15 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | NA |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.06 | NA |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 259.51 | 0.05 | 99.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 134039.25 | 0.10 | 1560.79 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 65.61 | NA | 1e+02 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 89.11 | NA | 3e-01 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 90.70 | NA | 5e-02 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 91.13 | NA | 5e-02 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 93.55 | NA | 5e-02 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 94.72 | NA | 4e-02 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 96.17 | NA | 4e-02 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 98.67 | NA | 3e-02 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 2e-02 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 2e-02 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 48.71 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 81.95 | NA | 43.62 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 88.57 | NA | 19.07 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 93.78 | NA | 9.02 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 96.25 | NA | 8.42 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 98.61 | NA | 2.82 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.32 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.32 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.32 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.32 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 8.41 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 62.91 | NA | 69.26 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 74.01 | NA | 66.21 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 78.90 | NA | 60.07 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 82.01 | NA | 56.13 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 89.21 | NA | 40.56 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 92.65 | NA | 35.92 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 98.27 | NA | 15.63 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.11 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.11 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 42.49 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 59.18 | NA | 49.84 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 70.10 | NA | 49.72 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 77.98 | NA | 2.03 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 81.82 | NA | 2.02 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 86.70 | NA | 1.97 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 93.59 | NA | 1.56 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 96.53 | NA | 1.40 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 1.14 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 1.14 |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
| Indicators | values |
|---|---|
| Intensity (I-1) | 0.16 |
| Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) | 0.09 |
| Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) | 0.04 |
| Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) | 0.03 |
| Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) | 0.91 |
| Average PD impact | NA |
| Average L1 impact | NA |
| Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 | NA |
| Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 | NA |
Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle
| MSFD broad habitat type | Extent of habitat 1000 km2 | Number of grid cells | Landings 1000 tonnes | Value 10 6 euro | Swept area 1000 km2 | Average fishing intensity I 1 | Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2 | Prop of area fished per year I 3 | Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abyssal | 184.55 | 7854 | 0.54 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 15.96 | 955 | 235.96 | 0 | 10.02 | 0.63 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.14 |
| Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 14.98 | 1051 | 5.39 | 0 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Upper bathyal sediment | 11.74 | 689 | 1072.31 | 0 | 18.78 | 1.60 | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.23 |
| Offshore circalittoral mud | 1.33 | 168 | 97.26 | 0 | 6.27 | 4.71 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.29 |
| Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef | 0.42 | 142 | 26.84 | 0 | 0.41 | 0.96 | 0.59 | 0.35 | 0.18 |
| Offshore circalittoral sand | 0.32 | 65 | 41.55 | 0 | 0.43 | 1.35 | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.23 |
| Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.15 | 76 | 2.33 | 0 | 0.26 | 1.67 | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.30 |
| Unknown | 0.15 | 26 | 3.86 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.08 |
| Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.06 | 36 | 3.53 | 0 | 0.25 | 3.98 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.33 |
| Lower bathyal sediment | 0.04 | 16 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 0.17 | NA |
| Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment | 0.01 | 7 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.33 | NA |
| Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.01 | 11 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.43 | 0.01 | NA |
| Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef | 0.00 | 4 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.68 | 0.02 | NA |
| Circalittoral sand | 0.00 | 5 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
| Circalittoral mixed sediment | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
| Circalittoral mud | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
| Infralittoral sand | 0.00 | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA |
Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).
Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018
Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground
Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.
Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.
| X | DRB_MOL | OT_CRU | OT_DMF | OT_MIX | OT_SPF | SDN_DMF | SSC_DMF | TBB_CRU | TBB_DMF | TBB_MOL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 33.22 | 3.78 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes) | 0.39 | 4.07 | 1485.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Value (10^6 euro) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 41483.26 | 0.12 | 392.77 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
No information available
Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.
The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.
Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 99.45 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 99.50 | NA | 88.87 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 99.55 | NA | 70.71 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 99.59 | NA | 58.45 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 99.65 | NA | 58.42 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 99.73 | NA | 58.34 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.79 | NA | 58.29 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.89 | NA | 58.12 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.96 | NA | 7.52 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.04 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 52.93 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 79.19 | NA | 85.54 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 84.29 | NA | 65.58 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 87.15 | NA | 50.21 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 89.28 | NA | 43.10 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 91.98 | NA | 35.30 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 94.30 | NA | 30.25 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 97.25 | NA | 2.26 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 99.01 | NA | 0.45 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.00 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 87.21 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 94.28 | NA | 86.45 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 96.75 | NA | 60.16 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 97.68 | NA | 38.16 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 98.26 | NA | 15.52 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 98.68 | NA | 0.49 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 99.13 | NA | 0.44 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 99.52 | NA | 0.34 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.21 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.21 |
Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.
| Effort reduction | PD impact | L1 impact | Unfished area | Decline in value | Decline in weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | NA | NA | 34.88 | NA | 100.00 |
| 5 | NA | NA | 69.55 | NA | 67.11 |
| 10 | NA | NA | 75.24 | NA | 60.35 |
| 15 | NA | NA | 78.92 | NA | 53.89 |
| 20 | NA | NA | 82.20 | NA | 49.30 |
| 30 | NA | NA | 87.11 | NA | 40.44 |
| 40 | NA | NA | 89.96 | NA | 28.71 |
| 60 | NA | NA | 95.13 | NA | 3.02 |
| 80 | NA | NA | 98.17 | NA | 2.20 |
| 99 | NA | NA | 100.00 | NA | 0.00 |